HI 3133 peer review worksheet Please fill this sheet out completely, using as much space as necessary for

each question. (This will range from a few words to a few paragraphs.) 9 April 2013 SHOW YOUR PARTNER THE RESPECT HIS OR HER HARD WORK HAS EARNED BY ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS FULLY AND HONESTLY. Name of reviewer: Crystal Roby Name of reviewee: David Vanlandingham Argument. 1. The stated thesis of this paper is: How Ulysses S. Grant is best remembered as a General in the Union Army during the Civil War who was a genius military strategist and the 18th President of the United States. 2. The actual thesis of this paperwhat it is really arguingin my own words, is: Grant was a brilliant general who was in a league of his own, and that maybe the North wouldnt have won with Grant. Hes success on the battlefield led him to the White House. 3. Critically evaluate the (actual) thesis. Does it make logical sense? Is it too broad, too narrow, too ambitious, too inconsequential, etc.? The thesis does make sense; I dont think its too broad; it concentrates on two moments in Grants life that was very important in how America would be shaped. 4. Did the paper raise any questions in your mind that werent answered? (This is not necessarily a bad thing.) The paper did raise one question for me, what were Grants personal feelings about the war? Did he approve of raging a war against the southern states? How did he feel about going up against the great Robert E. Lee? Had Grant and Lee ever met prior to the Civil War? 5. Did the paper make assumptions about your knowledge that werent warranted? Conversely, did it explain things that you did not need to have explained? I dont think the paper made any assumption on my knowledge of Grant. The paper was very informative for I person (like me) that didnt know that much about Grant, except maybe that he the 18th President of the United States.

Evidence. 4. Is the evidence presented sufficient to make the stated argument? What, if anything, would you liked to have seen more evidence for? What, if anything, did you think was over-proved (i.e., demonstrated with an avalanche of evidence when just a little would have sufficed)? There are masses of evidence that is stated throughout the paper to support the thesis. 5. Is the papers citation scheme consistent and appropriate? If you were a researcher on this topic, could you mine its footnotes or other citations for sources the way you did your own secondary sources? The citations were fine. I didnt mind the bibliography page. For me like put footnotes in my paper, because you dont have flip to pages to get to the bibliography page.

Style and structure. 6. Was the paper readable? How do you think it could have been improved from a writing perspective? The paper is readable 7. Comment broadly on the structure and organization of the paper. Did you feel lost at times? (If so, where?) Did the paper have good signpostingi.e., did it remind you of where you were in the argument, of what was coming next, of what had just been said, etc. In general, did the organization make sense? Would you have done it differently? The structure and organization flood pretty well. I didnt ever feel like I was lost. Scope. 8. Comment on the scope of the paper. Would it have been improved by broadening the subject, narrowing it, including different/more/fewer examples, etc.? I think could have been broader. I would have liked a background story of Grant, like his years at West Point, and how that may have shaped him into the brilliant general that he is viewed as today. I would have liked to have seen how his family coped during the years that he was away fighting the Civil War.

General comments. 9. The strongest aspect of this paper was: The strongest aspect of the paper was the detail description of Grants military campaign and some of his policies that he passed when he was president. 10. The weakest aspect of this paper was: The weakest aspect of the paper was it focused more on Grants role in the Civil War than his years as the U.S. president.

Summary. 11. Please summarize your impressions of the paper here, and add any final comments you think your partner should bear in mind as she/he revises this draft. My impression of the paper is that is pretty good. It flowed great, there no moment where I was confused about where you were going. Im not really a military buff, so I really know Grants full role in during the Civil War. The only comment say right now when youre going back over your draft, is to write about Grants life before the Civil War, like his years in West Point and his marriage and his children or how well he got along with other generals in the Union Army.